You know, if the same energy exerted by the angry protesters was directed at things like support for public transit I bet we'd get an LRT in no time. Instead they react to infrastructure proposals instead of being pro-active (at least that's the sense I get).

"but activist Ingmar Lee claims they have failed to make a thorough examination of the area and missed some key features, including some possible culturally modified trees"

Above is a quote from the Tyee article, and was also in the Goldstream Gazette.

Do you know what a culturally modified tree is? One that has had branches or bark removed from it for firewood. I happen to have a whole bunch of these in my backyard, but I didn't know I was culturally modifying them, I just called it pruning.

Ingmar Lee - What a clown, how would anyone take anything he says seriously when he makes statements like this.

Drumbeats, battle cries and animal-like yells rang out from tree platforms scattered through a patch of Langford forest yesterday as protesters interfered with survey work on a planned highway project.

Masked protesters ran between trees, while others gathered around the two surveyors, physically handling their equipment and pulling out stakes and ribbons.

"Please get clear of my instrument," said one surveyor, anxiously watching protesters muddle the sensors of his $50,000 Leica surveyor's gun by twirling the lenses.

<snip>

Protesters are trained in civil disobedience including the use of lock down tubes where they wrap their arms around trees and lock themselves in.

"I want to make it clear that everything that we'd do out there is absolutely non-violent civil disobedience. There's nothing out there that we're doing that would be outside of that scope," said organizer Ingmar Lee.

Lee, said they prefer being charged with trespass or mischief, so they could air their concerns in court.

But, there is also the worry about what tactics the RCMP might use to remove them, such as the voltage-packing Tasers.

"We're actually building vests -- Taser resistant vests out of very heavy duty rubber and that sort of thing," Lee said.

The idea prompts chuckles from Langford deputy Mayor Denise Blackwell, who says the municipality will probably proceed by way of court injunction when the time comes to cut trees and bulldoze land.

<snip>

"What I'm hearing from everyone is just get on with it," says Mayor Stew Young in a recent interview.

"You can't break the law. If the law says we're going ahead, a few people will not stop what has to be done for the majority," Young said, explaining the interchange is needed because of congestion on limited roads which can be dangerous.

Young said the municipality will proceed by whatever legal means it has.

"They have a right to protest. We're not saying don't protest, we're just saying do it lawfully. But when they break the law it won't be us in there, it will be the RCMP to deal with it."

Langford Mayor Stew Young is livid about allegations the activists trying to block the Spencer Road Interchange are killing wildlife.

Young said Langford bylaw officers have found a deer carcass at the site in the woods just off of Leigh Road. “We’ve respected their right to protest, but killing deer and rabbits is absolutely disgusting.”

Langford bylaw officers have visited the site regularly since the summer, said Langford bylaw officer Phil Williams.

“We found a fresh deer carcass that looked like it was slaughtered by a knowledgeable person,” Williams said. He said bylaw officers observed a bow and arrow on one visit to the camp.

As well on that visit, they saw a rabbit skin and feet nailed to a table, which raises concerns about poaching, said bylaw officer Wayne Brown.

The use of an open trench as a latrine could be cause for health concerns, and structures in trees high above the ground could pose additional health and safety concerns, Brown added.

Williams said they have contacted conservation officers and will continue to do so in the event of any new findings.

“We’re going to continue to monitor the site regularly,” Williams said, pointing out there has been no enforcement action taken at this time.

Young said the city has contacted the West Shore RCMP and conservation officers, and will pursue charges where appropriate.

“You must abide by the rules, whatever municipality you live in,” Young said. “This has gone way beyond their right to protest.”

Zoe Blunt, a spokesperson for the protesters, denied any activists are killing deer or any other animals in the forest.

“Nobody at the camp is killing deer,” she said. “There are more people out in this forest than just us.”

In a Dec. 15 release, Blunt argued the half-dozen or so activists have been good stewards of the forest.

“We’ve hauled out hundreds of pounds of trash that was dumped at the site in past years, and we’ve recovered hundreds of recyclable bottles and cans left by partiers and homeless people before the area was targeted for an interchange.”

Blunt noted West Shore RCMP have photographed people at the camp site in the forest off Leigh Road.

West Shore RCMP Cpl. Gerry Sutherland said two officers in uniform attended the camp, the second visit in a week.

“We’re trying to initiate dialogue and establish a familiar face for liaison purposes,” Sutherland said. Both visits were by uniformed officers during daylight hours, he stressed. “The protesters have indicated they believe they have a right to be there and so do we,” Sutherland said.

Sutherland said officers will continue with regular visits. “We haven’t given them any direction to do anything, including leave.”

Something really bugs me about this article, actually. A newspaper report should, in a sense, be like a courtroom, where you don't get away with introducing evidence that's based on innuendo and hearsay. There is nothing in this article that concretely links one deer carcass and one rabbit skin to the protesters -- nothing. And yet the mayor is quoted as being "livid," as though it's proven that the protesters were responsible. Where is the proof?

Obviously we don't know what the reporter submitted to his editor, but if the reporter submitted the story as is, he's irresponsible, and if the editor changed the story to lead with the deliberately chain-yanking presentation of dead wildlife, then s/he should be kicked out of the profession. Stew Young's sound bite, "We’ve respected their right to protest, but killing deer and rabbits is absolutely disgusting,” practically leads the story, and prejudices the reader's mind. That quote is geared to "proove" that the protesters are no-good, law-breaking wildlife murderers while Mr. Young is "respectful" and law-abiding. But there is no proof.

When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

Smells like a smear campaign against the protesters to me.
Regardless as to whether anyone supports the protesters' cause, one has to give them credit with their perseverance.
I'm betting Young is beginning to be seriously concerned that these protesters might actually foil his plans. After all, nobody thought all those Cathedral Grove squatters could actually make a difference... and look what happened there.
Regardless, how many uber-treehuggers do you know that are willing to sacrifice all the comforts of the modern world that aren't vegetarians or vegans?

how many uber-treehuggers do you know that are willing to sacrifice all the comforts of the modern world that aren't vegetarians or vegans?

Looks like they do eat meat...

The rain holds off, miraculously. At dinnertime, three dozen tree-huggers are gathered around a small campfire devouring barbecued salmon, roasted wieners, mashed potatoes, and bags of fruit and cookies.

Something really bugs me about this article, actually. A newspaper report should, in a sense, be like a courtroom, where you don't get away with introducing evidence that's based on innuendo and hearsay. There is nothing in this article that concretely links one deer carcass and one rabbit skin to the protesters -- nothing. And yet the mayor is quoted as being "livid," as though it's proven that the protesters were responsible. Where is the proof?

Obviously we don't know what the reporter submitted to his editor, but if the reporter submitted the story as is, he's irresponsible, and if the editor changed the story to lead with the deliberately chain-yanking presentation of dead wildlife, then s/he should be kicked out of the profession. Stew Young's sound bite, "We’ve respected their right to protest, but killing deer and rabbits is absolutely disgusting,” practically leads the story, and prejudices the reader's mind. That quote is geared to "proove" that the protesters are no-good, law-breaking wildlife murderers while Mr. Young is "respectful" and law-abiding. But there is no proof.

You gotta be joking!!

Slanted media - Oh the horrors!

If this is the first article you have come across that is slanted - it is the first article you have read. That is how the NA press is. If you have ever seen something in the news that you had knowledge of you will quickly realize that they print/say exactly what they want to promote their viewpoint.

@ LJ: what G-Man said. Of course I've read slanted articles before, d'uh. But that doesn't mean I let them pass without comment, if commenting is appropriate (or stands a chance of being effective). And in this case, I'd have to kick myself to let that article pass.

When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.